[Ham Part One] Human morality is not a cosmic law built into the universe, nor is man predestined to be a moral creature. ... In a free society, the people determine how they want to be governed, including the rights they are to enjoy as free citizens.
[Ham Part Two] America's founders said that all men are endowed with the "unalienable" right to Life, Liberty (i.e., Freedom), and the pursuit of Happiness. They recognized these values as innate to man (i.e., endowed by their Creator) [Arlo] Which is it? Something that people determine? Or something bestowed by "God"? You make a pretty firm statement in the former, but then seem to nod in aggreement with the latter. [Ham] It is man's freedom that allows him to set up the moral code of behavior you call "social control". [Arlo] Once again, your problem arises from the assumption that "society" and the "individual" are either unrelated or uni-directional. Society and the individual, as articulated nicely in the article on Structuration that Ron circulated, exist dialectially, mutually generative and bi-directional. To the extent that man appropriates cultural values and norms, adopts a vision guided by the language, history, and metaphors of her/his community, man's relationship with society is "structurated". To the extent that man is able to act with will and change his surroundings, man's relationship with soceity is one of agency. But ultimately, both of these are forever intertwined. To propose that one's only options are the complete subservience to "society" or complete autonomy of choice is ridiculous. [Ham] Civilization would never have come about if man could not sense the value of peaceful coexistence or possess the intelligence to implement a social system that would ensure it. [Arlo] How true. Although I think that "peace" was not the driving force of early community, but "strength in numbers", and the gradual recognition that a group could accomplish more than a single person (such as dropping a mastadon). Also, given the history of bloodshed and war between "group allegiences" (nations, tribes, etc.), not to mention the ubiquitous use of slavery, executions, sacrifices and violence to uphold community norms and appease "Gods" this statement may be over-reaching. Perhaps dropping "peaceful"... "Civilization would never have come about if man could not sense the value of coexistence". Sounds more accurate, but becomes one of those dreaded tautologies, since "civilization" is "coexistence". What you are really saying is, "Civilization would never have come about if man could not sense the value of civilization". Well, duh. But I digress. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
